Product Description

Do you have what it takes to become the next Emperor of Rome?

It is the 2nd century AD and the 200-year Pax Romana of Augustus Caesar has come to an end. With the death of the Philosopher-Scholar Emperor Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Empire is without a competent leader. Disorder reigns and civil war looms. Mars will be pleased. It is a time for war. It is a time for Conquest of the Empire!

Over 300 historically accurate, professionally sculpted miniatures are included in this detailed board game. Plus, Conquest of the Empire is really two games for the price of one! Included in every box are rules for both the original classic game, as well as all new advanced rules that give the game additional depth and strategy!

Product Reviews

"Will you be the next emperor of Rome ... or food
for the lions?" and
"It's two, two, two, two games in one"

The Story:

Players of Conquest of the Empire take on the role
of potential Caesars in the second century A.D.
The 200 year Pax Romana has come to an end and
someone must arise to unite the land. Who that
person is will be determined through land and sea
battles across the empire.

The Play

Interestingly, Conquest of the Empire contains two
games in the box: the main game, which is a
re-issue of a fun, but flawed MB Gamemaster
game
and Conquest of the Empire II, a new design by
Glenn
Drover
based loosely on Martin
Wallace's
brilliant Struggle of
Empires. Since the original
game is more likely to appeal to our regular
readers, I'll focus on that one, but that isn't to
say that COEII is a bad game. In fact, it is the
game more likely to see heavy play among my group
for a few reasons that I'll mention later.

COE is a pretty basic light war game and, as such,
follows a familiar formula. Players start by
placing their initial allotment of troops on the
board on one of seven provinces. After initial
set-up, players take turns moving troops around
the board engaging in combat in order to expand
their empire.

Combat is handled using special dice (a mechanic
which I'll be the first to admit I'm a sucker
for). Players organize their forces into Battle
Legions and then roll a number of dice equal to
the number of troops allocated for combat. The
dice have symbols that match the different unit
types (Infantry, Calvary, Galleys, Catapults).
Players then match the rolled symbols with the
units in the combat-each match is a hit. Pieces
are removed and combat continues until one player
retreats or in completely destroyed.

After a player has completed movement and combat,
they collect tribute based on the number of
provinces under their control. Money collected in
this phase is then used to purchase new units,
cities, and roads.

The game continues until only one player remains
on the board or all remaining players agree on the
new Caesar.

My Take

It's hard for me to describe just how impressed I
am with Conquest of the Empire. Though it was
always hard not to respect Eagle's production
values, in the past I've had some issues with
Eagle Games products, especially their rules and
playtesting. Here, we have a short, simple rule
set that polishes the previous edition's rough
areas without producing new problems. Furthermore,
the more strategic COE II rules that are included
in the box (though not as clearly written) make
for an amazing value. I was a big fan of the
original COE and remain one to this day, but I
really like Drover's new design (CO II),
especially the fact that it can be played in less
than three hours and features no player
elimination. I'll try to do a follow-up review on
COE II when I've had more time to get it to the table.

As far as the original's game play goes, I love
the fact that tributes are acquired mid-turn
instead of at the beginning of the turn. This
really rewards aggressive play and is one of the
reasons COE doesn't suffer from the "wait/amass
troops/attack" rhythm of similar light war games.

I also enjoy the feel that building cities,
upgrading them, and building roads between them
provides. A much greater sense of empire building
is present in the game than in other combat-heavy
games with the same theme.

Finally, a component review follows, but I must
say that the quality of the components, including
the amazingly over-sized map, adds quite a bit to
the gaming experience. This baby draws a crowd
from across the room, and it simply feels cool to
play with all those marvelous bits.

All those elements taken into consideration make
Conquest of the Empire my current choice for game
of the year. It would be in my top five with just
the basic rules, but the excellent COE II just
pushes it over the edge.

The Components:

Conquest of the Empire's box absolutely crammed
full of goodness. The game comes with nearly 400
large, well-sculpted miniatures representing the
various combat units. These are so detailed that
the catapults even feature moving arms. I
especially liked that the miniatures were ready to
play. So often with games this size it can take
hours to carefully remove the minis from their
sprues. With COE, these were separated, bagged and
ready to go.

The game also includes large plastic coins to
represent tribute and high-impact dice with
symbols imbedded in the plastic (no stickers here).

Finally, the map has to be seen to be believed. It
is huge (46 x 36 inches) and well drawn by Paul
Niemeyer. I actually have to add the extension to
my dining room table in order to place the map and
have a place for the players to organize their pieces.

Rating: 9.0/10

Pros: Smooth, fast-playing combat
Nice synergy between rules and theme
Have I mentioned those gorgeous components?
A second, fine set of rules included in the box

Cons: Might last too long to get it to the table as often
as I'd like
Players can be eliminated early and have a long time to wait

This game rocks. Without the modified rules, catapults become a limited commodity that all players race to purchase. In the original game the 30 or so catapults that came with the game were an intentional game limit, so you only ever fought a battle till the number of catapults lost in a round equalled the number you could purchase back during the purchasing phase.

I am in total agreement concerning the playability, speed, and enjoyment of this game. It really is by far the best game of this series-- way better than axis and allies and fortress.. you don't need weeks to play and the strategy and side shifting make it way more enjoyable than dip. or really any of the other strategy board games. I wish it were around more. Its a great 2-3 hour play

Conquest of the Empire is the finest of the MB Gamemaster Series games; it's a multiplayer struggle to be the last man standing (but nowhere near as acrimonious as Diplomacy). As a pretender to the title of Caesar, you marshal your infantry, cavalry, and catapults, and collect tribute from provinces under your control. All troops must be led either by a general or your caesar (but don't lose him).

Building cities allows you to collect more tribute, and allows you to hook up your provinces to facilitate quick movement (one of the neater parts of the game--you can move from Asia Minor to Carthage in one turn, thanks to those roads). Galleys allow you to sail across the sea and engage in naval combat. At two points in the game, inflation hits and the prices for units double, then triple, which puts the squeeze on the players who have not expanded their influence or taken others out of the game. A turn consists of movement, combat, purchasing, then placing your units (always in your home capitol). Combat is handled through targeting a unit in your opponent's force, then rolling a die. The presence of a catapult or fortified city may allow you to hit that target better, a feature called 'combat advantage'. We have found that gaining combat advantage is just a luck fest using the normal rules, though, so we play by the Burns House Rules.

We have found that the Burns House Rules really do a lot to make the game fairer in a couple of ways: the players are more balanced, and catapults are not tanks. They are these:

1. No more than two catapults in a legion.

2. Catapults can be hit on a 4 or more when they become the only units in an attacking force. So you need to 'screen' them with other units. I must credit my sources, though--I got this off the Internet from Mike Montesa. Thanks!

3. Arabia and Tingitana are worth 10.

4. Mesopotamia is adjacent to Arabia (this is unclear on the board). This, plus the previous rule, go a long way to balancing out Numidia and Egyptus, who start off without much access to cash.

5. You have to lose both capitol and caesar to be knocked out of the game. If you lose one, the taker gets 50 tribute as a bonus, and you get your caesar back (if that's what you lost).

6. Italia starts first. This is important, as Italia is one of the weakest positions on the board.

I may yet have more tweaking to do; reducing the number of catapults in a legion makes the game play better, but has the effect of lengthening the game. But all in all, my group has found that with these rules, Conquest of the Empire is a very satisfying war game. It's hard to come by nowadays, sadly, but if Avalon Hill's recent reincarnation as a Hasbro division becomes successful, then I would bet that they would consider this gem for a re-release.

Whether you own the game or not, if you're interested in discussing Conquest of the Empire further, let me invite you to a Yahoo! Group devoted to the game, administered by Don Hessong.

In 1984, Milton Bradley produced a game called Conquest of the Empire
which was part of their highly touted Gamemaster Series of boardgames.
As is well known to many people, the game garnered devotees all
over the world. Over time, however, the game went out of print,
leaving a legacy of fond remembrances and a supply scarcity which
often led to exorbitant prices for anyone contemplating trying to
obtain an original copy of the game.

In 2003, Eagle Games announced a partnership with Larry Harris, the
original designer of Conquest of the Empire, to bring the game back
to a whole new legion of enthusiasts. In addition, Eagle Games
promised a newer, improved version of the game for those fans who had
been hoping for a reprint of the original. Arriving just ahead of
the Christmas season, Conquest of the Empire is here....with a bonus.

The Eagle Games version of Conquest of the Empire comes with two
rules sets... which means one box and two game experiences. To give
full credence to each, Gamefest will do a two part review, taking a
look at each game event separately. We will start with reviewing the
updated original version by Larry Harris and we will follow that with
the all new second rules set, at a later date.

Components

With the Eagle Games version of Conquest of the Empire, one can almost
hear the thundering hooves of a thousand cavalry and envision the
furls of row upon row of crimson standards set to the "pom pom pom"
cavalcade of drums. The production values are fully immersive with
this effort and the components have a huge "wow" factor. The rich
hues of the sunset colored board are only exceeded in splendor by a
board size that can only be described as colossal... 3ft by 4ft.
While common to the Eagle Games historical mix, the board is
nonetheless impressive in its sheer dimension. When the playing
pieces are set upon Conquest's highly artistic and graphical map, it
is very difficult to arrest your gaze from anything that is not the
glory of the Roman Empire. This is Paul Niemeyer's finest work for
Eagle Games and each region on the map has ample room for playing pieces.

The game playing pieces are comprised of plastic catapults, infantry,
cavalry, generals and of course, your Caesar. In a change worth
noting, each of these pieces comes in their own assortment of colors:
red, purple, blue, yellow, green and black. This is different in one
very real sense from the original which had a common color pool that
was shared and drawn from by all players. Because you have your own
color to draw your supply from, this means that each player
individually manages their own pool of resources rather than managing
a group pooling of those resources. This will be discussed a little
further when discussing the changes in gameplay. Roads, cities and
the fortifications for those cities continue to be shared in common
lot, however, and remain communal and finite. They are colored in
light beige.

As to be expected, Eagle Games puts everything into the quality of
their components. This does leave a lack of desirable storage for
the game but it is seemingly offset by an endless fascination with the
stunning quality of the playing pieces, cards, and tokens by almost
anyone who sits down to play this version of the game. In fact, our
version weighed in at a hefty 7.2 pounds. So the game literally has
weight. Another nice thing is that the plastic pieces come already
off the sprues and bagged for you. This means you don't have to spend
any time cutting pieces off sprues before you begin the game.

The cards (not used in the "classic" version) are on very solid stock
and should have no problem holding up to repeated playings. The
large plastic talents (coins) represent a durable effort at managing
monetary transactions and have unique detail. They come in two
denominations, silver (5 talents) and gold (10 talents). An
inventory count of the plastic playing pieces indicated everything was
properly accounted for, however, there is a typographical error in the
rulebook concerning the inventory of pieces. There are only 10
cavalry of each color, not 20 as described. There may also be a
small discrepancy in the number of coins received in the game. As far
as we can note, this is not nearly enough to affect gameplay and at
any rate you may well find that your version has everything accounted
for.

Everyone that we have encountered has really given kudos to Eagle
Games for their tremendous production values and the high "toy" factor
of their playing pieces. Frequently commented upon is how the pieces
immeasurably add to the viability and perspective of playing within
the historical period. A faint criticism can be had in that it is
difficult to tell your Caesar and the generals apart from common
infantry. This is one game where you need to be certain of exactly
what pieces are being moved from one territory to the next.

Gameplay

The premise behind Conquest of the Empire is to achieve the capture
your opponents Caesars, one by one, until you alone remain as Caesar
of the Roman Empire. As players eliminate each individual opponent,
they acquire their respective units, territory, cities/roads and
money. On almost every turn you will complete these actions in the
following order: 1. Movement of Pieces. 2. Resolve Combat Resulting
From Movement. 3. Collect Tribute based on Current Positions after
Combat. 4. Use the Resulting Tribute to Purchase New Pieces. 5.
Place those Pieces. Each player completes all of these actions
before moving on to the next players turn.

Six territories make up the starting points: Macedonia, Italia,
Hispania, Egypta, Galatia and Numidia.

The movement between territory is simple. Units move on the map
according to their movement allowance for their respective turn.
Movement over long distances can be strategically simplified by the
building of cities and roads in between, which count as a single
movement. The main premise to remember is that in order to move
combat units, they must be accompanied by either your general or your
Caesar. The danger in moving your Caesar, of course, is the
potential vulnerability in exposing him to capture. This is because
if a battle is lost, then your generals and/or Caesar may be
captured... dependent on how the battle is resolved.

How combat is performed marks a key difference in philosophy that
separates the old and new version of the game. In order to more
completely explore the differences and improvements in the 2005
version of Conquest of the Empire, we have to talk briefly about the
older version of the game published by Milton Bradley. In the
erstwhile 1984 version of Conquest of the Empire, players rolled dice
for each unit in their army against the target unit they were
attacking. Catapult units received a "hit" bonus which essentially
reduced the number showing on the die required to score a "hit". In
the old version of the game, catapults were considered especially
powerful.... to the point of being too much so. This was potentially
compounded because everyone purchased from a common pool of units.

Let's look at an example. Because of the finite supply of units, once
all catapult pieces were purchased and put into play..... then no
other catapult units were available unless a piece was eliminated in
battle. One person who could afford to amass enough catapult units
could make it virtually impossible for anyone else playing to be able
to stop them. While being able to command powerful combat pieces was
a popular draw for the old version of the game, the rules did create
what many consider to be a flawed imbalance.

The 2005 version of Conquest of the Empire rectifies this.

As noted, one of the widespread complaints about the 1984 original
version was the strength of the catapult unit relative to the other
units in the game. Eagle Games has attempted to fix this in their
version of the "classic" game via an innovative new system. Combat
situations are now resolved by rolling special combat dice for every
unit in the battling legion. Each of the dice depict pictures of the
various units. The infantry unit is depicted on two sides of the die.
Once a player rolls the assigned number of dice, he/she matches up
the die faces with the units comprised in his/her battle legion.
Each matched die face is counted as a "hit".

So has the catapult issue been solved? In fact, it has. There has
even been discussion from those people who have had advanced
screenings of the game that now the infantry units may be stronger.
To get further clarification on what the new catapult unit brings to
the table and how balance is achieved in the game, we turned to Keith
Blume at Eagle Games and asked him about the benefits of catapults and
cavalry relative to the infantry pieces. Here is what he had to say:

"As armies get bigger you roll more dice (in the classic rules, 1 per
unit in your battle legion). It is possible that people may only look
at the fact that there are infantry icons on two sides of the
six-sided dice. So they might be thinking... "I should only buy
infantry because they have twice as much chance to hit as any other
unit AND the other units are more expensive." But there is more to
it than that. What also should be considered is the likelihood that
you will roll something other than an infantry on the die. Remember,
66% of the time you will roll something other than an infantry
pictogram. So as you add more dice, it becomes more beneficial to
have a mixed force. Let's take an extreme example. Let's say you
were rolling 10 dice. The likelihood that you would roll infantry
pictograms on every die is highly unlikely. Obviously, at some
point in time it is beneficial to obtain the other units to improve
your chances of "hits" across all units that may show up on the dice."

Additionally, this creates for some interesting decisions in the game
because while the composition of your forces determines the number
"hits" you score when you roll the dice... it is your opponent which
decides which pieces are actually eliminated from his or her legion.
Hence, there are always tough choices in how you will maintain the
balance, makeup and scope of your forces as they become casualties in
battle. Trust us when we say this creates some real tension in the
gameplay.

Speaking of which, another interesting dynamic in the game that is
worth noting revolves around economics. During the "collect tribute"
phase of the game, money is collected for each territory/city you
control, in the form of tribute. An interesting mechanism occurs
when a player reaches the tribute level of 105 talents. At that
point, inflation doubles the cost of the units available that you may
wish to purchase. This immediately applies for everyone. At tribute
level of 205 talents, the cost triples. Triggering inflation may
actually be a viable strategy for the player that can afford it, to
put pressure on the other players capacity to purchase new units.

Final Review Comments

Unanimously, everyone loves the component offering in the new Conquest
of the Empire. Individual game participants who helped review the
game agreed, without dispute, that the new 2005 Conquest of the Empire
"Classic" rules were a definitive improvement over the original
version of the game. In the "review game" which was played, there was
an initial concern over game balance issues when one of the players
was eliminated in the first 15 minutes of play and another player
threatened immediate dominance. The "elimination" was due more to
the inadvertent strategy of a player leaving his Caesar primarily
unguarded, making for an easy capture.

The game participants were surprised, however, that with some careful
planning by the rest of the group the game allowed itself to be
brought back to an effective balance between all parties. This is
really a credit to the design team of Larry Harris with help from
Glenn Drover. The gameplay was markedly fluid, strategic and
well-reasoned. It is no easy acheivement for a game to be able to say
that a great deal of "result" can be accomplished with careful game
planning... especially when the game mechanics involve some dice
rolling. This version of Conquest of the Empire, however, can proudly
proclaim it. Combat was also well thought out in the Eagle Games
version and the "catapult issue" of the older Milton Bradley version
is effectively resolved.

For those people who enjoy manipulating the power of various "weaponry
at disposal" to achieve combat primacy, you will not find it in this
game. This game is far more about combat resource management rather
than the utilization of tactical battle strength/deployment. In
other words, "balance of forces" is a more important operative phrase
for this game rather than the "power of pieces". This is actually
good because it better reflects the epoch in which Roman era conflicts
were fought. Combat in Roman times was a simpler, though no less
brutal affair and these rules are an elegant simulation of that fact.

Please note that there is an "elimination' aspect to the game that
players need to contend with and most participants voiced a concern
over the duration of the game... which can be a little extensive with
6 players. We safely conclude that you should estimate a minimum of
one hour of playing time for every player who is participating in the
game. A high percentage of people playing the "review game"
indicated that the gaming experience had an enjoyable fun factor,
making it worthy of the time it takes to sit down to Conquest of the
Empire. One person noted that the "fun factor" increased to "fairly
high" once the game got going. The replay factor may be slightly
diminished due to the duration of the game and a lack of willingness
of all players to accept playing a boardgame of this type. With an
excessive duration, some people may also become tired with the pacing
and start to use the "go for broke" approach to combat. So that is
also a consideration to take into account.

Conquest of the Empire was designed for social interaction.
Alliances can be made, generals ransomed and deals sought. As the
reviewer, I was fortunate to play with a great group of guys and this
also makes a difference in the game experience. This game's agreement
for social interaction is an overlooked treasure that potentially
makes it so much fun. What is great about Conquest of the Empire is
that it has no pretensions toward being a complicated "wargame" and
yet the thought needed to do well in this game is great. The rules
book, which has been deemed by some people as Eagle Games "achilles
heel" in the past is very, very clear this time. The pairing of Larry
Harris and Glenn Drover for the design is truly a significant one...
it would be great to see them partner on subsequent titles. Eagle
Games has truly inherited the mantle of the Gamemaster Series and if
you are a fan of this type of game, the 2005 edition of Conquest of
the Empire will be a magnificent addition to your collection.

We would be hard pressed to see how Eagle Games could have improved on
this very impressive effort for the genre. Stay tuned for the second
part of this review where we will assess the game using the Conquest
of the Empire II rules!

In my younger days and college years, I pretty much
resigned myself to the fact that I'd never acquire Conquest of the
Empire -- at that point one of the GameMaster
series by Milton Bradley. I had the "big three", Axis and
Allies, Fortress
America, and Samurai
Swords, but Conquest was more elusive and didn't seem to
be in many stores. Then, I read on the internet that the
game was a good one but had "broken" rules about catapults.
This, added to the games rarity, pretty much convinced me
that I'd never pick up the game.

Then I heard that Eagle Games had acquired the rights and
were going to reprint it. Wow! I mean, I consider Eagle
Games to be the successors of the GameMaster series, and now
they were going to make one of the games I had wished for
into a purchasable reality with their incredible component
quality! (Waiting on Fortress America, still). When I
finally saw the finished product, I was blown away by how it
looked; and I was expecting it to look great! Conquest of
the Empire (Eagle Games, 2005 -- Larry Harris and Glenn
Drover) comes with TWO sets of rules for two almost
completely different games. One set of rules is an improved
version of the original rules of the game -- a rule set
redone by Larry Harris with input from Glen. But another
set of rules is included, a set done by Glen Drover but
heavily based on (and attributed to) the rules to Struggle
of Empires by Martin Wallace. Both games involve the
struggle between would-be-Caesars and their competition to
control the ancient Roman Empire in the second century.
Players take the role of their "Caesar", attempting to
conquer all other players either by total destruction (the
first game) or most points (the second).

I've had a chance to play through both rule sets; and
while I'm not sure I would buy the game on the strength of
the first rule set (although I'm sure there are plenty of
people who will enjoy it), the rules based on Mr. Wallace's
game are tremendous; and I had a real blast playing them.
They're certainly abstract, and I almost feel guilty for
using such beautiful pieces and such a massive board to play
what is closer to a "Eurogame".

Some comments on the game... (Game #1 refers to Harris'
design, and #2 refers to Drover's design.)

Map: The huge map is pretty much the standard in any
Eagle game these days; but unlike a few of the former
boards, this one utilizes space pretty well. Yes, they
could have made the board much smaller, but the larger board
provides a much more grandiose experience. I do understand
that some might have a problem with this, as table space is
limited -- Conquest certainly demands a gargantuan playing
area.

Miniatures: I always insist that a war game with
miniatures is invariably more fun to play than one without
them and still think that here. There are only five basic
types of units (leaders, spearmen, cavalry, galleys, and
catapults), but they are beautiful models -- some of the
largest plastic models I've seen come in any war game. The
galleys are huge and well detailed, and the catapults
actually have a moving piece! Add this to some nice city,
fortress, and road pieces, and the game is a plastic
treasure trove -- the complete setup game is amazing to
behold.

Money: The plastic coins used for money in both games
is fantastic to see and feel, while at the same time feeling
just a tad bit overdone. I love the coins -- they're HUGE,
and easy to pass around and move. In fact, I think any game
such as this is often better served by coins rather than
paper bills. But the coins are spent (at least in Game # 1)
to such a high degree that people rarely hang on to them.
We found that we spent our entire income each turn, as one
can barely afford not to. On the flip side, money is much
more important in Game # 2, as it's used for alliances,
purchasing cards, units, etc. The coins are a big "wow"
factor of the game -- not since Ave Caesar have I seen such
neat plastic coins.

Other Components: The cards (used for # 2) are of the
highest quality with the stunning artwork by Paul Niemeyer
all over them. In fact, Paul's artwork for this game, both
on the box, board, and cards, is some of the best artistry
I've seen in a game ever. It's very evocative of the
turmoil-filled period of the second century and helps set
the mood quite well. The chaos tokens, province tokens, and
influence tokens are all two-sided cardboard tokens, easy to
handle, and all easy to distinguish from each other.

Combat: Six-sided dice are included with the game, each
with a picture of an infantry on two sides, a cavalry on
another, a catapult on another, a galley on the fifth side,
and the sixth blank. While battles are different in each
game, there are similarities. Basically, dice are rolled,
and for each picture that matches one of the units making
the attack, a casualty is taken from the other side. It's
almost a reverse of the combat system from Memoir '44.
While it's effective, and I enjoy it more than using regular
six-sided dice; it's still quite lucky. We found that
occasionally a much superior force would lose ignominiously
to a smaller troop, and for some people, that can be
annoying. Having combined arms is a help in battles, but
I'm wondering if an optimal combination can be found. In
the first game, catapults have their uses (can attack from
reserve), and cavalry are fairly useful (can move two spaces
instead of one like everyone else). But the infantry are the
true backbone, and I found myself continuing to buy them.
Not only are they the cheapest unit to buy, they also seem
to be the most powerful -- hitting 33% of the time, as
opposed to the 16% of the other units. There is a limit of
troops a player can have, and I suppose that the fact that
players will eventually be forced to buy other units
balances the game out; but I wonder if the power of infantry
might not cause war strategies that are too similar. Time
will tell.

Struggle of Empires: Struggle of Empires is a fantastic
game by Martin Wallace that is an excellent abstract game
about colonizing the world and spreading one's influence.
Game # 2 is, while not an exact replica, fairly close to
Struggle, using many of the same mechanics and having the
same basic game structure. It's quite a bit simpler than
Struggle, and I'm not so sure that's a bad thing -- quite
the opposite! In Struggle, there were a myriad of different
tiles that players had a choice of acquiring each round to
further their cause. In Conquest, players utilize almost
the same system -- but instead using a deck of cards. Each
turn, cards are turned over equal to twice the number of
players in the game. This allows the players some options
-- from a deck of many -- but not enough to overwhelm them.
The card mechanic also helps cut down on some of the angst
of decisions and makes play smoother. I really enjoyed the
Conquest cards and thought that Glen took a clever mechanic
by Wallace and made it even better.

Abstract: Game # 2 is fairly abstract, especially in
movement. Players can, if not stopped by their opponents,
move their armies in ways that might boggle the mind of a
traditional war gamer (it's similar to the free move in
Risk). I've found that the war gamers that I've played # 2
with have generally not been as impressed by it, and some
can't deal with the abstract nature of the movement. I
think the movement symbolizes political maneuvering myself,
and enjoy it, but I can see how some might find it
shortcoming. Either way, both games force all players to
move armies only with a leader, and that is something I find
enjoyable. Players can't move all their armies -- just five
or so of them (players have four leaders and "Caesar").
Leaders add some combat bonuses in battle, but their biggest
draw is that they move armies around. This takes the game
above being abstract and grounds it in the reality of that
historical period.

Elimination: Game # 1 has elimination, while # 2
doesn't. That, simply, is the sole reason that I would have
to enjoy game # 2 better. When a player is eliminated in
the game, the conqueror gains all their resources, getting
richer in the process. This is fine, as long as you come
into the game knowing this, but I enjoyed the peaceful yet
wary cooperation that occurs in game # 2.

Alliances: The single best feature of Struggle of
Empires was the force alliances, and that has carried over
to Game # 2 of Conquest. Each "season" (series of turns)
players bid on turn order and player alliances. Players
attempt to place each other in either "Alliance A" or
"Alliance B". For the remainder of that turn, players in
the same alliance may not attack one another (although they
can do underhanded things), thus giving a rich player a lot
of power (they can determine who's in which alliance). For
me, this is one of the best ways I've seen to handle
multi-player games where everyone gangs up on one person.
With alliances, at least two other people can only resist
the leader in a passive way.

Players: Both games support up to six players, but I'm
not sure that six is a good number for game # 1. In # 2,
players simply take two actions, and then the next player
takes a turn, keeping downtime to a minimum. In game # 1,
downtime is rather long, and I found myself occasionally
getting bored because others moved a little slowly. In # 2,
I think six is the optimal number -- it makes alliances more
exciting and important. In # 1, it would appear that four
is the magic number.

Rules: Two rulebooks are included with each game and
are full of colorful rules, pictures, hints, examples, and
more. I didn't have any problems with the rules for # 2,
but we did have some questions (which I did find the answers
for online) from # 1. Both games are easy to teach, but # 1
is much more comprehensible for people to understand -- the
strategies are straightforward and don't differentiate much.
In game # 2, players have many options, and therefore can
take a variety of tactics.

Senators: There are a lot of different things I could
say about game #2, but the senate vote was a neat feature
for me. Each player receives some senator cards that have
values of 1-3 at the beginning of the game. Players can
purchase vote cards during the game, which means they can
call a vote on one of five different agendas. Each player
uses their senator cards to sway the vote (more of these can
be picked up during the game) with the winner usually
getting a pretty nice benefit. I liked how the senate added
a bit of variety to the game. If one concentrates too much
in the Senate, they have to back off a bit militarily, and
vice versa. It's fairly difficult to maintain the perfect
balance.

There's a lot more that I can say about both versions,
but the burning question is -- which one is better? For me,
it's a no brainer -- version # 2 is more enjoyable for me.
I like the fact that it's much shorter, that it has less
downtime, and that it offers a wide range of possibilities.
It's possible to do well without much combat, which might
scare of some prospective players, but they would probably
enjoy version # 1 better, anyway. For me, Struggle of
Empires was a magnificent (but fairly complicated and long
game). Conquest has taken that system, streamlined and made
it more accessible, while at the same time adding in some of
the best components in a game ever.

But why quibble? The best feature of Conquest of the
Empire is that you get two complete games in one box! I
loved version # 2 and had a fairly fun time with # 1, while
some of the people I played with had the opposite reaction.
Yes, Conquest carries a fairly hefty price tag but compared
to the huge amount of toys in it (it weighs a lot!), you're
certainly getting your money's worth. And having games
inside that will appeal to both war gamers and Eurogamers --
the value of the new Conquest is amazing. If you're
interested in an empire building game, whether you like
combat as a focus or not, this is an excellent game to
purchase. Just pick the rules set that best suits you.
Either way, the beautiful components are yours to have fun
with.

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games."

Other Resources for Conquest of the Empire:

Board Game Geek is an incredible compilation of information about board and card games with many descriptions, photographs, reviews, session reports, and other commentary.